Threats of terrorism in the US are ‘more diverse and difficult to counter’

posted in: News | 0

Jeffrey Fleishman | (TNS) Los Angeles Times

She wanted a rifle. He needed a soldier for his plan to overthrow the government.

Sarah Beth Clendaniel was a radical looking for a target when, authorities say, she plotted with Brandon Russell — a white supremacist who belongs to an organization known as Atomwaffen Division — to destroy the power grid around Baltimore. Clendaniel dressed in camouflage fatigues. Russell went by the alias “Raccoon” and, according to federal agents, kept a framed picture of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh on his dresser.

They communicated through encrypted messages, but the mission was foiled by authorities. Clendaniel pleaded guilty in May to conspiring to damage or destroy electrical stations in Maryland. Russell, who was charged earlier for possessing explosives, is awaiting trial. The case did not attract much attention outside Baltimore, but it was another reminder of the danger of terrorism in an unsettled nation.

The U.S. is facing security threats in a presidential election year coming from Islamic militants, far-right extremists, leftist radicals and an array of zealots disgruntled over the nation’s culture wars and our polarized society. Officials are increasingly worried about the deepening strands of left- and right-wing venom rooted in antiestablishment anger and amplified by social media that are testing the government’s ability to track militants like Clendaniel and Russell.

“The threat’s not more potent than it was around 9/11, but it’s certainly more diverse and difficult to counter,” said Colin P. Clarke, the director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm in New York City. “We’re dealing with a more aggressive far-right, left-wing and what we call ‘salad bar people,’ who take a little bit of each ideology and thread them together. Incels. Q-Anon. The range of actors at play now is a lot broader than what we’re used to.”

The race between President Biden and Donald Trump underscores the prospects for unrest and violence. GOP senators have asked the Secret Service to keep demonstrators farther from the Republican National Convention at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee. Protesters are also expected to arrive en masse at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where in 1968, during an era of intense upheaval around the Vietnam War that some suggest parallels today’s political tremors, police beat and tear-gassed hundreds of marchers.

On a visit to Chicago this month, Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle met with nearly 100 agents who will be protecting both conventions. She told CNN she was concerned about a number of threats, including “the lone gunman.”

“You’ve got folks that are radicalized. You’ve got demonstrations that may pop up. And obviously, we hope they remain peaceful here, but they could turn violent,” she said.

Most of the violence and “other threat indicators [are] from groups that lean more conservative,” said Amy Cooter, a terrorism expert with the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. What’s notable, she added, was that the extremist narratives, particularly accelerationist ones — like those espoused by Clendaniel that use violence to speed up social collapse — can appeal to radicals across the political spectrum.

“There’s potential for people who have very different underlying political beliefs,” said Cooter, “to join forces on issues they have common ground on.”

National militant organizations complicit in the Jan 6. riots, including the Proud Boys, remain a danger, Cooter said, despite arrests of its leaders and loss of a centralized online home since Facebook blocked extremist groups. Before the 2020 election, Trump told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” Reuters reported that after Trump was found guilty in May of falsifying business records, a Proud Boys chapter in Ohio promised “war” in a statement that read: “Fighting solves everything.”

Trump’s increasingly militant campaign speeches against immigrants and conspiracies about the “deep state” also resonate with other groups in the so-called patriot movement. The former president suggested in veiled language that his followers might rise up if he were sent to prison: “I’m not sure the public would stand for it,” he told Fox News. “You know, at a certain point, there’s a breaking point.”

“Not all militia members like Trump. Some think he’s too brash, too old,” said Cooter, who spent years interviewing and investigating militia groups in Michigan. “But they are very responsive to his rhetoric because he appeals to their worries about immigration or about changing culture in other ways. Even if they’re not going to vote for him, their urgency around these issues gets stirred up.”

Today’s turmoil has yet to reach the magnitude of the late 1960s or the 1970s, when far-left domestic terror groups like the Weather Underground and Symbionese Liberation Army orchestrated scores of bombings. Many of the threats these days come from varied agendas, including Payton Gendron, who wrote a 180-page racist screed before killing 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y., in 2022, and James Hodgkinson, a left-wing radical who in 2017 shot and wounded at least four people at a softball practice for Republican congressmen in Alexandria, Va.

In April, Kyran Caples, who police say was radicalized while at Fresno State and joined an obscure antigovernment group known as the Moorish sovereign citizens, shot and critically wounded two police officers in Florida. Caples was killed by police. In the plot to destroy the Baltimore power grid, the Justice Department quoted Clendaniel, once photographed heavily armed and wearing camouflage fatigues, a headscarf and a skull mask, as saying an attack “would probably permanently completely lay this city to waste.”

The country has been shaken by anger and unrest in recent years around the COVID-19 pandemic, mass shootings, George Floyd protests, an insurrection at the Capitol and pro-Palestinian rallies on college campuses. Those domestic ruptures have coincided with a rejuvenated branch of ISIS that is recruiting militants beyond its base in Afghanistan and this year carried out attacks in Russia and Iran that killed at least 220 people.

FBI Director Christopher A. Wray recently told cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point that his agency was concerned about “a rogues’ gallery” of foreign organizations calling for violence against Americans. But he suggested that the more pressing danger comes from individuals and small groups in the U.S. who “draw twisted inspiration from the events in the Middle East to carry out attacks here at home.” The agency, he said, has been “running down thousands of reported threats.”

He added that tensions around the Israel-Hamas war “will feed a pipeline of radicalization and mobilization for years to come.” In April, Wray, describing what he called a heightened threat environment, told the House Appropriations Committee that the agency’s 2024 fiscal year budget was nearly $500 million below what it needed. “This could not come at a worse time,” he said. “We need people…. Now is not the time to cut back.”

That threat landscape — radiating through a wide prism of anger and ideologies — has shaped America’s discourse and sharpened its divisions. The battles playing out in Congress have run parallel to social and political fervor around antisemitism, Gaza, abortion, immigration and gun rights unfolding on college campuses, state houses, podcasts, rallies and talk shows.

“The powerful emotions that have been unleashed aren’t fading,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert and professor at Georgetown University. “Terrorism never occurs in a vacuum. It always leverages off of the divisions, contentiousness and controversies that are in the political arena and that will lead to a very small fringe to conclude that violence is the only way” to overthrow a corrupt system.

The radicalization of the young is rooted in the generation that came of age during the isolation of the pandemic and has since seen governments as either powerless or indifferent to climate change, wealth gaps and stopping wars in Ukraine and Gaza. “This seeds a bed of frustration and mistrust,” said Hoffman, co-author of “God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America.” “They’re looking to be entertained and stimulated rather than informed and confident that they’re getting accurate information. TikTok is feeding them what they want.”

When he was testifying testified before the House Appropriations Committee, Wray outlined the threats the U.S. faces from terrorism, cartels trafficking fentanyl, and cyberattacks on business and infrastructure.

“As I look back over my career in law enforcement,” he said, “I would be hard-pressed to think of a time where so many threats to our public safety and national security were so elevated all at once.”

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Swing-state legislatures diverge on election-year gun measures

posted in: Society | 0

Amanda Hernández | (TNS) Stateline.org

States continued to diverge on gun policy this year, with especially intense debate in the swing states that will decide November’s election.

In Michigan, legislators are considering at least half a dozen gun bills that would create storage requirements and establish gun-free zones. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers are still debating measures that would ban sales of untraceable guns and gun parts, prohibit bump stocks and make some procedural changes related to gun purchases. Meanwhile, Republican legislators in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina have sought to make it easier for people to procure guns and to carry them in more places.

This past week offered reminders of the continuing salience of guns in American life.

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2018 rule — issued by the Trump administration — that banned bump stocks, which are attachments that transform semiautomatic rifles into weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. The administration issued the rule after a gunman used semiautomatic rifles equipped with a bump stock device to kill 60 people and injure more than 500 others at a Las Vegas music festival.

And on Saturday, a gunman opened fire at a splash park in Rochester Hills, Michigan, injuring nine people — including two children. The violence came three years after a student opened fire at Oxford High School in the same county, killing four people and injuring seven.

Mass shootings that occur close to election seasons typically have a significant effect on the country’s perception of guns, according to experts.

“If there are any particularly horrendous shootings in the months to come, that has a way of pushing the issue back to the forefront of the agenda,” Robert Spitzer, a gun policy expert who has written six books and over 100 articles on gun policy, told Stateline.

Meanwhile, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and GOP candidates nationwide have made crime and public disorder main themes of their campaigns — even though most crime measurements are trending downward.

Gun policy has been a topic of debate for decades, but has become especially prominent as the number of gun-related deaths and mass shootings has grown almost every year since 2014, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit group that tracks gun violence in the United States.

Gallup poll from October 2023 found that the majority of U.S. adults, or 56%, support stricter gun laws, while 31% think they should remain as they are and 12% prefer less strict laws. Meanwhile, a Pew Research Center survey from June 2023 found that 60% of U.S. adults say gun violence is a major problem in this country.

Other states — including Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia — also considered gun-related legislation this year.

Electoral impact

Voters who support gun rights are often highly mobilized and consistently turn out at the polls because of their strong personal connections to firearms, according to politics and gun policy experts.

In contrast, voters who support gun safety measures are harder to mobilize because they are more likely to prioritize other issues, such as the economy or foreign policy.

“A small but highly motivated minority can often win the day politically over a large but fairly apathetic majority,” said Spitzer, an emeritus professor of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and an adjunct at the William & Mary Law School. “That’s kind of the short version of how you explain what’s been going on in gun politics in America.”

Extensive academic research and numerous studies can support either side of the gun policy debate. Politicians will use whatever data or studies that best support their platforms, according to political communications experts.

For example, left-leaning Democratic politicians often cite studies suggesting a correlation between stricter gun policies and lower crime rates, according to Jacob Neiheisel, a political science professor at the University at Buffalo.

But gun rights think tanks and organizations also produce research supporting their position, including the claim that crime rates drop when more people carry guns, Neiheisel added.

Experts stress that, regardless of party or position on gun policy, it’s important for people to understand how the data was collected and to be aware of potential biases.

For example, politicians often rely on annual national crime and victimization data produced by the FBI, but these datasets measure crime differently — a fact that is not always well understood by politicians or voters.

This allows some politicians to lean on the sources that best support their arguments on gun policy, according to Alex Piquero, a criminology professor at the University of Miami and former director of the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.

“It’s not that the data are wrong. It’s not that the data lie. It’s just that there are different data measuring different things,” Piquero said. “But if the average person doesn’t know that or doesn’t take the time to understand … then they are an ill-educated voting populace.”

Campuses and polling places

In Michigan, legislators are considering at least half a dozen gun bills, including measures that would establish firearm storage requirements and prohibit guns in certain state-owned buildings and within 100 feet of polling places, drop boxes, early voting sites and absentee ballot counting boards.

“Being that we don’t want firearms at polls or counting boards is very reasonable and very much needed in the spirit of promoting democracy — allowing people to cast their votes without fear of intimidation,” said Democratic state Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, one of the sponsors of the elections-related gun bills, in an interview with Stateline.

Tsernoglou said she expects both bills to pass this session. While they have already cleared the House and Senate, the bills await another vote in the House before advancing further. The legislature adjourns in December.

The Wisconsin state legislature, now adjourned, considered a handful of gun bills during its session. One bill sought to prohibit credit card companies from mandating specific merchant category codes for firearms retailers and prevent governmental entities from compiling lists of firearm owners based on background checks. This bill passed the legislature, but was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in March.

Another proposed bill in Wisconsin sought to ban firearms in buildings or on the grounds of publicly or privately owned colleges and universities in the state. This bill did not advance in the legislature, but Democratic state Sen. Kelda Roys, the bill’s lead sponsor, plans to reintroduce it during the next legislative session.

“We have now a whole generation of young people that have grown up with this horrible specter of gun violence following them through their education,” Roys said.

In Georgia, a measure that bans firearm purchase tracking was signed into law in April and will go into effect in July.

A proposed bill in Arizona would have allowed people with valid concealed carry permits to carry firearms on university and college campuses.

Another Arizona bill under consideration would have prohibited local governments from restricting or banning gun shows within their respective jurisdictions. The Arizona legislature has adjourned, and neither bill advanced.

State legislators in Pennsylvania are still considering at least six gun bills, all of which would further restrict gun purchases and ownership. Some of these bills would ban future sales of assault weapons, outlaw the purchase, sale and production of untraceable guns and gun parts, and reduce the time judges have to notify the state police about people with mental health records from a week to about four days for background checks.

While some of these bills have failed in the House, the Pennsylvania legislature adjourns at the end of November, so there may be more activity closer to the upcoming election.

Permitless carry

State legislators in North Carolina may consider at least two gun-related bills this session, with sponsors planning to reintroduce and garner support for their proposals.

One bill would make North Carolina the 30th state to allow permitless concealed carry or “constitutional carry,” meaning it would be legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

The bill’s supporters point to FBI data in arguing for the measure.

“Crime rates go down when you have armed citizens. There’s no doubt about that. The FBI holds that up time and time again,” said Republican state Rep. Keith Kidwell, one of the bill’s sponsors, in an interview with Stateline.

The gun rights group Grass Roots North Carolina is pushing for the supermajority Republican legislature to pass the bill, arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime in any of the states that have adopted constitutional carry.

In North Carolina, people are no longer required to apply for a pistol purchase permit from a sheriff, but they must still go through the sheriff for a concealed carry license. Grass Roots North Carolina would like to see the state enact a constitutional carry bill to remove this requirement.

“We are particularly interested in passing [the bill] to make sure that we can keep some of these urban sheriffs from obstructing people from carrying concealed firearms for self-protection,” said Paul Valone, the group’s president, in an interview with Stateline.

The other bill would establish a so-called red flag law in North Carolina. At least 21 other states and the District of Columbia have similar laws, which typically allow a judge to take someone’s firearms away if they are deemed to be a harm to themselves or others.

Many gun rights groups argue that red flag laws infringe on Second Amendment rights and the right to due process.

“I don’t care which right it is, you don’t take away people’s rights without the due process of law,” Kidwell said, adding that he will work to prevent the bill from advancing.

Democratic state Rep. Marcia Morey, a former judge and the bill’s lead sponsor, told Stateline in an interview that the bill includes specific protections to prevent any infringement on due process rights.

“It’s just about keeping people safe, and the safety, I think, preempts any right to possess a gun,” she said.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fails to qualify for CNN’s debate. It’ll be a showdown between Biden and Trump

posted in: News | 0

By MEG KINNARD (Associated Press)

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has failed to qualify for next week’s debate in Atlanta, according to host network CNN, falling shy of benchmarks both for state ballot qualification and necessary polling.

The missed markers mean that the June 27 showdown will be solely between Democratic President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. That denies Kennedy a singular opportunity to stand alongside the leading candidates in an attempt to lend legitimacy to his longshot bid and convince potential supporters that he has a shot at winning.

Both the Biden and Trump campaigns fear that Kennedy could play spoiler in what’s anticipated to be a close general election.

According to the criteria set out by CNN, candidates would be invited to participate in the debate if they had secured a place on the ballot in states totaling at least 270 votes in the Electoral College, the minimum needed to win the presidency.

Biden and Trump have easily cleared the polling threshold but won’t be certified for the ballot until their parties formally nominate them later this summer. Both have secured enough delegates to lock in their nominations.

Kennedy’s campaign says he has satisfied the requirements to appear on the ballot in 22 states, with a combined 310 electoral votes, though not all have affirmed his name will be listed. California, the largest prize on the electoral map with 54 votes, will not certify any candidates until Aug. 29.

Candidates were also required to reach a polling threshold of 15% in four reliable national polls by June 20, another metric CNN said Kennedy failed to meet. According to the network, Kennedy has received at least 15% in three qualifying polls so far and is currently on the ballot in six states, making him currently eligible for 89 Electoral College votes.

Last month, Kennedy filed an election complaint alleging CNN is colluding with Biden and Trump to exclude him from the June 27 debate, alleging that the participation requirements were designed to ensure only Biden and Trump would qualify and claiming that he is being held to a higher standard.

Related Articles

National News |


Noam Chomsky’s wife says reports of famed linguist’s death are false

National News |


What’s a heat dome? Here’s why so much of the US is broiling this week

National News |


Singer Justin Timberlake charged with driving while intoxicated in the Hamptons

National News |


FACT FOCUS: Biden’s pause as he left a star-studded LA fundraiser becomes a target for opponents

National News |


An Oregon nurse faces assault charges that she stole fentanyl and replaced IV drips with tap water

CNN has said the complaint is without merit. Kennedy’s campaign did not immediately respond to a message Thursday seeking comment on CNN’s announcement and asking if he planned to take any further action about his exclusion.

Last month, Biden and Trump agreed to the CNN debate and a second on Sept. 10 hosted by ABC, bypassing the nonpartisan commission that has organized debates for nearly four decades.

After winning a coin toss, Biden’s campaign chose the right podium position, meaning that he will be on the right side of viewers’ screens, with Trump on the left, according to CNN. Trump’s campaign then opted to deliver his closing statement after Biden.

Both campaigns have agreed to appear at podiums, and microphones will be muted except for the candidate whose turn it is to speak.

Bret Stephens: How capitalism went off the rails

posted in: Politics | 0

The Group of 7 countries might have set a record when they met in Italy last week. Has there ever been a less popular assemblage of leaders of the free world? Approval ratings ranged from Giorgia Meloni of Italy’s about 40% to Emmanuel Macron of France’s 21% to Fumio Kishida of Japan’s 13%. Last year the Edelman Trust Barometer found that only 20% of people in the G7 countries thought that they and their families would be better off in five years. Another Edelman survey, from 2020, uncovered a broad distrust of capitalism in countries across the world, “driven by a growing sense of inequity and unfairness in the system.”

Why the broad dissatisfaction with an economic system that is supposed to offer unsurpassed prosperity? Ruchir Sharma, chair of Rockefeller International and a Financial Times columnist, has an answer that boils down to two words: easy money. In an eye-opening new book, “What Went Wrong With Capitalism,” he makes a convincing case.

“When the price of borrowing money is zero,” Sharma told me this week, “the price of everything else goes bonkers.” To take just one example: In 2010, as the era of ultralow and even negative interest rates was getting started, the median sale price for a house in the United States hovered around $220,000. By the start of this year, it was more than $420,000.

Nowhere has inflation (in the broad sense of the term) been more evident than in global financial markets. In 1980, they were worth a total of $12 trillion — equal to the size of the global economy at the time. After the pandemic, Sharma noted, those markets were worth $390 trillion, or around four times the world’s total gross domestic product.

In theory, easy money should have broad benefits for regular people, from employees with 401(k)s to consumers taking out cheap mortgages. In practice, it has destroyed much of what used to make capitalism an engine of middle-class prosperity in favor of the old and very rich.

First, there was inflation in real and financial assets, followed by inflation in consumer prices, followed by higher financing costs as interest rates have risen to fight inflation — which inevitably begets political pressure to return to easy-money policies.

For wealthier Americans who own assets or had locked in low-interest mortgages, this hasn’t been a bad thing. But for Americans who rely heavily on credit, it’s been devastating. “For families already strained by high prices, dwindling savings and slowing wage growth, increased borrowing costs are pushing them closer to the financial edge,” The New York Times’ Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek reported in May.

Sharma noted more subtle damages. Since investors “can’t make anything on government bonds when those yields are near zero,” he said, “they take bigger risks, buying assets that promise higher returns, from fine art to high-yield debt of zombie firms, which earn too little to make even interest payments and survive by taking on new debt.” A recent Associated Press analysis found 2,000 of those zombies (once thought to be mainly a Japanese phenomenon) in the United States. Collectively, those companies have a total of $1.1 trillion in loans to pay between now and September.

The hit to the overall economy comes in other forms, too: inefficient markets that no longer deploy money carefully to their most productive uses, large corporations swallowing smaller competitors and deploying lobbyists to bend government rules in their favor, the collapse of prudential economic practices. “The most successful investment strategy of the 2010s,” Sharma writes, citing podcaster Joshua Brown, “would have been to buy the most expensive tech stocks and then buy more as they rose in price and valuation.”

But the worst hit is to capitalism itself: a pervasive and well-founded sense that the system is broken and rigged, particularly against the poor and the young. “A generation ago, it took the typical young family three years to save up to the down payment on a home,” Sharma observes in the book. “By 2019, thanks to no return on savings, it was taking 19 years.”

The social consequence of this is rage; the political consequence is populism.

Sharma is no fan of Bidenomics, which, he told me, took “the 100-year expansion of government and put it in overdrive” with unprecedented stimulus packages and politically directed investments. But unlike other prominent Wall Street investors, he isn’t signing up for the Donald Trump bandwagon, either. The former president loves easy money, tax cuts without spending cuts and record deficits.

“He promised to deconstruct the administrative state but ended up adding new rules at the same pace as his predecessor — 3,000 a year,” Sharma said of Trump. “His exercise of presidential authority to personal ends shattered historic precedents and did more to expand than restrict the scope of government. For all their policy differences, both leading U.S. candidates are committed and fearless statists, not friends of competitive capitalism.”

What happens when both major parties are wedded to two versions of the same failing ideas? And what happens when leading figures of both the progressive left and the populist right seek to compound the problem with even easier credit and more runaway spending?

The answer: We are wandering in fog. And the precipice is closer than we think.

Bret Stephens writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Nolan Finley: Treat all gun violators the same as Hunter Biden

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: American leaders should stop debasing themselves on Israel

Opinion |


Tyler Cowen: The real government conspiracy isn’t about UFOs

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: Ukraine’s volunteer spirit buoys its fight against Russia

Opinion |


Gabe Roth: Supreme Court ethics lapses aren’t a partisan issue